I\'m a new user of gigastudio, so bear with me. I just purchased 2 western digital 120gig drives that I plan on using with raid 0. I\'ve seen a couple of other posts where a user still had a third drive for the actual applications (using the raid strictly for data). My question is does this really provide any advantages? I assume that once gigastudio is loaded up into ram and running, it won\'t affect the access/seek times when it needs to stream samples from the hard disk.
I\'m just trying to understand the potential advantage of having a seperate drive dedicated to the applications.
Also, I\'m interested in hearing any feedback from other raid users. Is it in fact a potentially better solution than just a straight ide setup ? Throughput is obviously higher, but I want to hear from gigastudio users.
I\'m still getting some clicks and pops during playback. So far it seems as though these become less frequent when I completely shut off graphic acceleration. I\'ve read these forums and tried some other adjustments but havent yet completely ironed it out (only using gigastudio 96 presently).
I\'m running a p3 800 with a raid 0 setup....aopen ax6b motherboard with 256mb sdram.
windows , even with 640Mb of RAM (I have this on my machine) reads on the hard drive frequently....so the best thing is to access your GS samples from your Raid 0 setup, and have a small drive to load windows.
While you do get higher throughput from Raid, Giga is not really a bandwidth hog. Its MAIN concern with hard drives is access time. What you may wnat to do is split your samples accross the two drives and always load various ones from BOTH drives, instead of all your samples from one drive. This will mean the access is split among the two drives when GS is playing notes from different instruments.
Raids are generally more for bandwidth hog apps like video editing and audio editing. You\'ld think that giga would REALLY benefit from it, but if you aren\'t getting high access speeds then throughput doesn\'t mean squat when you get pops and cracks
>>>\"..... What you may wnat to do is split your samples accross the two drives and always load various ones from BOTH drives, instead of all your samples from one drive. This will mean the access is split among the two drives when GS is playing notes from different instruments.\">>>
Isn\'t this in fact being done just by using raid ?
>>>\"...Raids are generally more for bandwidth hog apps like video editing and audio editing. You\'ld think that giga would REALLY benefit from it, but if you aren\'t getting high access speeds then throughput doesn\'t mean squat when you get pops and cracks \">>>
Correct me if I\'m wrong...but having 2 drives in a raid setup (The drives I ordered WD 120 avg access 8.9ms)seems like it would be splitting the access time between 2 drives...just as you recommended.
Sorry if I\'m being a bit slow on this.
Let me ask you this...assuming I have 3 drives to play with (one ibm deskstar 40gig, and the two western digital 120 gig drives - all <9ms),as well as a raid card, what would be your preferred choice of a setup ?
A) 2 total drives,straightforward...Just 2 ultra ata drives - (no raid at all)
B) 3 drives, 1 drive for windows and other apps, the remaining 2 drives for samples (no raid)
C) 3 drives, 1 drive for windows and other apps, the remaining 2 drives for samples (running raid 0)
D) any other configuration you think would be best.
Currently I\'m running raid 0 with 2 ibm deskstar 40gigs. Overall the performance is decent, with only an occasional glitch. Seems like when I get up to around 80 voices the glitches become much more frequent (using gigapiano with a lot of sustain pedal.) I would like to upgrade to gigastudio 160, but figured this would be a waste as I already can\'t seem to handle more than about 80 voices. I\'m willing to upgrade any component in the system, but I\'m not sure what would be the most important component.
I\'m not sure if this has anything to do with the fact that I\'m only using an 800 mhz processor (P3)or the aopen ax6b motherboard. I figured more ram wouldn\'t make a difference (256 currently).
Again, I apologize for this. I\'ve read and reread the posts, and have seen some people with relatively slow processors squeaking a lot of voices out of their box, while others with very fast machines apparently get a lot of pops and stuff.
Anyhow, and and all insights are GREATLY appreciated.
I had 2 puter systems made for me..
1 is a giga system P3 1 gig 512 ram with win 98se and run 3 drives.. All of them are ata100 seagate drives.. the C:/ runs off the primary ata100 ide blue plug on the motherboard.. The dvd rom and burner are slaves off each other..
The raid drives are raid 0 so windoze sees them as 1 big drive.
I have no problems at all running this with a motu 2408 and have it\'s buffer setting at it\'s lowest with their new giga drivers.
160 poly done no problem with up to 24 outputs running at the same time from the 2408.
I love it so much I built a second system for logic audio the same way..
I was told to consider an ata100 good drive even for windoze.. For the price of them now it wasn\'t a question so there isn\'t any comprimize..
I do believe they setup win 98se lite though.
[This message has been edited by seclusion (edited 12-12-2001).]
Thanks for the reply Seclusion and congrads for enjoying a kicking system ! About time I heard a success story...I was really wondering if it was going to be possible. Any other specifics regarding your system would be appreciated....i.e. what motherboard you are using, and did you tweak the bios at all (and any other system tweaks, specific harddrive models etc etc.
I dont believe the access time would be split among both drives. While yes data would be accessed from both drives at the saem time, it doesn\'t mean giga will be acessing dignificantly differrent data to improve performance.
When you split the drives up as two seperate drives, and TELL giga which to read off of which, you have a better advantage.
I personally have two UTA 100 drives for my gigs and one uta 66 for windoze and another uta 66 for apps running on the same computer. I get 140-150 note poly on the average. no pops no clicks.
Asus a7v board with 512k RAM and an athlon 1 gig. I think I can tweak a little more performance out of the system I\'m jsut too lazy and 150 is enough for me most of the time.....well no really since I have a second computer running giga as well now. about 300 note poly and I still dont think its enough
Whether one uses raid or not, the point is that you are using more than just one drive.
For instance, if you were accessing 100 samples per second off a single drive, that is 100 seeks on a single drive per second.
If, however, you distributed (evenly), your samples across two drives, then you are only doing 50 seeks per drive.
Raid, correct me if I\'m wrong, is just a way of making multiple drives appear as one, but the underlying effect is the same? The more drives, the fewer seeks per drive, hence overall better performance.
What raid hardware are people using?
In Raid 0, identical data is being written to both drives at the same time. It\'s for data redundancy ( and therefore safety in a server environment ). King is right... You\'d be better off using the two drives separately, dividing your gigs between the two.